Voting in Beauty Contests

(If you have not voted yet and are reading this column before the polls close, please do not read this as an endorsement or non-endorsement of Jackie Lee. I don’t know enough about her to endorse or not, and while this column could be interpreted as a slam against her, my comments are really about the system, not her.)
I was on a long drive Saturday, by myself, and as I came down US 70 this side of Clayton, I was struck by a billboard for this week’s election. Jackie Lee is running for judge. I think the billboard says “Elect Jackie Lee Judge” and features a large photo of Jackie. She is a relatively attractive lady who wears glasses, at least for this photo. (I wear glasses when I want to look intelligent, but mostly I’m too vain to wear them in photos.)
That’s pretty much the sum and total of that billboard.
In fairness to Jackie, there are severe restrictions placed on what Jackie can say in advertising for judges. Advertising experts will also tell you that billboard advertising is mainly for name recognition in political campaigns.
Still, even when I get mail pieces, it seems that the information that judicial candidates want me to know before I vote in a judge race is they reflect North Carolina values, whatever that means. Of course they seemingly all claim to have North Carolina values.
There are some voter guides out there with some information. There are some endorsements in these races. There are some helps in making the choices beyond just based on how attractive a face there is on the billboard or name recognition. (I like Mark Martin because he’s a Ford man. I know, he’s not the one running for judge, but I can’t help but believe Judge Martin thinks he benefits from the association.)
I’m sorry, but our system of elections works when there is an informed electorate. There is not enough information readily available to most to help them make an informed choice in judge elections. We end up voting based solely on name recognition or pretty faces on billboards, if we vote at all. Fewer and fewer people are influencing who is elected, either in endorsements, or by actual votes.
The system needs change.

I was very tempted to vote early, but did not make it to the polling places. I have not cast my ballot as the polls are not open yet today as I write this early Tuesday morning, but I usually make it.
I’ve been a bit fascinated by some of the television ads for some of the Raleigh area candidates. Both Marilyn and I have commented that we would vote for some of those whose ads we like, if we had had the chance.
Interestingly, when we have seen attack ads from their opponents, released a week or two later, we have changed our minds. I have also been affected by endorsements by the N&O. I respect their opinion, and may or may not agree with them, depending on why they endorse a candidate.
My perception is a significant number of people are voting early. I wonder if they have regretted their votes after getting more information about candidates they were voting for?
I think this will lead to longer campaign seasons, as more candidates try to get out their message out earlier.
I don’t necessarily see the early voting as bad, but I do worry about late revelations about a candidate.

Marilyn was commenting the other day on voting for sheriff. She said if the current sheriff hasn’t done anything to get in trouble, why would you vote against him?
I believe the public perceptions about crime are important in an election, but some may say the press and others can unfairly shape that perception.
It seems there is a patronage system in many sheriff’s departments. The perception is the sheriff hires who he likes, and when a new sheriff is elected, there are a number who suddenly leave the sheriff’s office.
If that is the case, you would at least hope that some of those who leave should have left. Still, it doesn’t seem to be the best way to develop amore professional law enforcement unit.

Speaking of sheriff, it will be interesting to see how the Wake County Sheriff fares in Tuesday’s election.
Donnie Harrison would seem to fit Marilyn’s criteria, at least on the surface. From some standpoints he has done a good job while in office.
He is being challenged by John Baker, who was seemingly well respected when he served as sheriff up until the most recent previous election when he was defeated by Mr. Harrison in a very close vote. (I can’t help but feel Mr. Harrison was helped by his Republican affiliation.)
As has been widely reported, the sheriff was named in an alienation of affection lawsuit, as a husband is suing his wife after she allegedly had an affair with the sheriff. Sheriff Harrison has acknowledged the affair with the married woman, but says he is not to blame for the breakup of the marriage.
We were discussing at church over the weekend the recent revelations about an evangelist/pastor and a male prostitute. One commented that it’s good that we continue to hold pastors to a higher standard.
Do we continue to hold law enforcement officers to a higher moral standard?
Sheriff Harrison says judge him on his job performance, not on his personal life.
Of course, you don’t hear people bragging on being Republican this time around. He could lose based on having an “R” next to his name.

As some of you no doubt noted, we did not do endorsements in this election. This is more a product of our recent staff changes than a change in our editorial philosophy. We will again make endorsement in local races, offering our opinion as more information for your consideration, if you wish.
We did offer interviews in many local races, and will continue to present information to help you make better choices in the election. We salute others who similarly devote space and air time to help us all make better choices in the voting booth.